DOJ’s Civil Rights Division Head Is Violating Federal Law and Her Actions May Be Void

With all the talk about how poorly Trump will run the country and be a dictator Here is an article depicting how Obama did just that. In the article
it states that it is a violation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act to appoint someone to a position as an acting official for more than 210 days if
it requires senate approval.

Here we have the civil rights prosecutor who has been acting in violation of the law for more than 2/3 of the time she has held the position. That
means that all of the rulings she has made for the past 18 months are subject to appeal and/or overturn. I wonder how many other direct violations of
the law we will see in the near future?

Nah nothing to see here, Democrats could never possibly do anything corrupt, least of all drone striking Barry!

Anything to further the agenda of their masters.

hey we democrats ARE ALL corrupt, and we eat babies and drink their blood, we all have hook noses so as to easily indentify us...maybe Putin can get
with our new national security advisor and his friend gen. Flynn, and help put democrats into "re-education camps"

With all the talk about how poorly Trump will run the country and be a dictator Here is an article depicting how Obama did just that. In the article
it states that it is a violation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act to appoint someone to a position as an acting official for more than 210 days if
it requires senate approval.

Here we have the civil rights prosecutor who has been acting in violation of the law for more than 2/3 of the time she has held the position. That
means that all of the rulings she has made for the past 18 months are subject to appeal and/or overturn. I wonder how many other direct violations of
the law we will see in the near future?

You do realize that this is the case because the Republican controlled Senate refuses to move on any of Obama's nominations right? But hey, don't let
common sense get in the way of your sensational attack on the left or anything.

You do realize that this is the case because the Republican controlled Senate refuses to move on any of Obama's nominations right? But hey, don't let
common sense get in the way of your sensational attack on the left or anything.

Common sense? If you recall your elementary school days, you should have learned about this thing called checks and balances whereby the Congress (the
legislative branch) is a check on the power of the President (the executive branch) and vice versa. So when the President violates federal law or
attempts to work around the power check of the legislative branch, that is indeed very troubling.

You do realize that this is the case because the Republican controlled Senate refuses to move on any of Obama's nominations right? But hey, don't let
common sense get in the way of your sensational attack on the left or anything.

Common sense? If you recall your elementary school days, you should have learned about this thing called checks and balances whereby the Congress (the
legislative branch) is a check on the power of the President (the executive branch) and vice versa. So when the President violates federal law or
attempts to work around the power check of the legislative branch, that is indeed very troubling.

Apparently you are missing the point here. Obama appointed someone. Senate doesn't move on his appointment so the person in acting charge of the
department doesn't get removed. This isn't a facet of Checks & Balances. It's just the Senate being stubborn and now the right is trying to pin that
on Obama. No, blame Congress for this situation. It's THEIR fault that this position hasn't been filled yet.

These appointments used to be a matter of procedure, but the Republican senate dragged it into the realm of petty, partisan politics.

since 1997. Bill Clinton was the one to caused this to become a big deal.

Interestingly enough, the court pointed out that it was a prior president’s similar abuse of the “advise and consent” requirement for the
head of the Civil Rights Division that was one of the reasons that Congress amended the original vacancies act: “The president’s appointment of
Bill Lann Lee to be acting attorney general of Civil Rights in 1997, prompted congressional action.” The Obama administration appears to be
repeating that abusive behavior.

and i would like to point out this also

This defies the Senate, the Constitution, and federal law. States, towns, businesses, schools, and police officers who have been targeted by
Gupta’s Civil Rights Division should realize that they may have a valid defense under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act against any actions taken
against them by the division while Gupta has been the acting assistant attorney general.

Nah nothing to see here, Democrats could never possibly do anything corrupt, least of all drone striking Barry!

Anything to further the agenda of their masters.

hey we democrats ARE ALL corrupt, and we eat babies and drink their blood, we all have hook noses so as to easily indentify us...maybe Putin can get
with our new national security advisor and his friend gen. Flynn, and help put democrats into "re-education camps"

Your tone implies that you believe I do not think Republicans are equally corrupt or engaged in eating babies... all I have to say to you is I
remember the Bush family as well as the Franklin Cover up, how about Dennis Hastert!?

Take it easy there champ, if you really wish for war with the evil Putin, you will have your chance...the neocon liberal are switching back to the
neocon republicans.

No. i didnt miss your point. The Senate is not required to give consent to the appointment. They considered it inappropriate for a lame duck President
to make such an appointment. There is nothing wrong with that.

No. i didnt miss your point. The Senate is not required to give consent to the appointment. They considered it inappropriate for a lame duck President
to make such an appointment. There is nothing wrong with that.

So what you are saying is that the Senate doesn't confirm Obama's appointment, therefore it is Obama's fault that there is someone in an acting
position longer than they are supposed to be? So what is Obama supposed to do? Appoint someone ELSE as acting head when that guys' time is up? How are
you not seeing the idiocy of blaming someone for something that is out of his hands?

That's stupid and a waste of Obama's time. Congress should just approve his appointments. This is why no one is making a big deal out of this issue.
The Republicans in Congress know they are at fault and if they bring this issue up they know that'll be pointed out about them.

Since when is doing the job that the people elected him for "wasting time"? The Senate is doing their job. One of the reasons for having these
limits is to make the President and the Senate re-visit the issue from time to time. It is not the job of the Senate to automatically approve the
President's choice.

Oh I agree that the tit-for-tat is ridiculous and the Democrats do the same. That goes without saying, but making a big deal out this situation and
accuse Obama like in the OP when it is CLEARLY Congress' fault that it even exists is super ridiculous.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.